Before election to board, Commissioner Smith advocated for new regulations
More than two-and-a-half years after he first broached the idea with the board — when he was acting as a private citizen in his professional capacity as an architect — Sarasota County Commissioner Mark Smith failed this week to win his colleagues’ support for proposed amendments to county policies and regulations that focused on decades-old Siesta Key condominium complexes.
Representing the Sea Club V condominium association on south Siesta Key in January 2022, Smith asked the commissioners seated at that time to consider the implementation of a plan that would allow the owners of condo complexes built on the barrier island prior to Jan. 1, 2000 to voluntarily demolish those structures and replace them with Florida Building Code-compliant complexes containing the same numbers of residential units.
The concern, Smith explained that day, was that structural problems could lead to disasters, mirroring the collapse of the Champlain Towers South building in Surfside in June 2021. Yet, the only option the county provides for reconstruction of condominium complexes, he stressed, is in the aftermath of an event such as a hurricane, as provided for in the county’s Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan. Then, the owners could replace their buildings with the same number of units.
During a Sept. 11 public hearing, Smith announced that he had filled out the appropriate county form to recuse himself from voting on amendments that day that had resulted from the effort he began before his November 2022 election to the board. However, he noted, county guidelines allowed him to engage in discussion of the issues.
Smith did emphasize one change that needed to be made in the proposed amendment to the county’s Unified Development Code (UDC), which contains all of the land-use and zoning regulations.
Contrary to a slide that county Planner Everett Farrell had presented to the board that morning, Smith said that the intent never was to permit higher multi-family structures than those already allowed in the county’s zoning regulations. The maximum should remain 45 feet over two levels of 12-foot-high parking levels, Smith pointed out.
For condo complexes on property zoned Residential Multi-Family 1 or 2, the maximum height would be 35 feet over two levels of parking.
Farrell’s slide showed a 65-foot-tall building over two levels of parking.
Smith suggested a revision to that amendment: “The maximum permitted height of the zoning district shall apply.”
He also stressed that the new construction would have to be “code-conforming in every way,” including adhering to the current flood elevation requirements.
The only exception for the new condo construction, he said, would be in regard to the number of units.
The proposed UDC amendment did include this line, though: “No increase in residential density is allowed. Rebuilt structures shall maintain the same housing type and number of residential units, as verified by the [county’s] Zoning Administrator.”
Further, Smith pointed out to his colleagues that county regulations do not allow over 50% of lot coverage to be impervious. That factor would limit redevelopment, as well, he said.
Nonetheless, four speakers during the Sept. 11 public hearing — all representing not-for-profit organizations and homeowners on Siesta Key — continued to contend that the proposed amendments to the UDC and to the county’s Comprehensive Plan would lead to far greater residential density and intensity than allowed in Future Land Use Policy 2.9.1 in the Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan guides growth in the community.
One of the speakers — Neal Schleifer, vice president of the Siesta Key Condominium Council — noted that 137 condo complexes on the barrier island are classified under county regulations as “nonconforming,” meaning that they stand taller than the current zoning restrictions allow, or they are waterward of the coastal construction setback line, for examples.
Those developments “cover well over 500 acres,” Schleifer said, which is about 28% of the buildable land area of the Key.
Ultimately, three of Smith’s colleagues on the commission expressed concern that further tweaks — and more public education about the various facets of the amendments — should take place before any vote occurs.
Waiting until the new commission has been seated
In response to questions that Chair Michael Moran posed, County Attorney Joshua Moye confirmed that the board members did not need to take a formal vote on a continuance of the Sept. 11 hearing; they simply could refrain from taking any vote.
The “no-action” option was the one they chose.
Smith had suggested that his colleagues could email him — in his professional capacity as an architect — any questions they still had in the aftermath of the staff presentation, public comments and discussion that day. However, Moye cautioned that that would be a violation of the state’s open meetings law. Moye suggested that another public hearing, or a board workshop, could be conducted, when all discussion would take place in a public setting.
If it were the will of his colleagues to do so, Smith proposed holding a workshop. Commissioner Neil Rainford agreed with that idea.
Then Commissioner Ron Cutsinger suggested that Smith could bring up the proposed amendments to the newly constituted County Commission after the November General Election and ask whether those board members would agree to a workshop.
“I’d be supportive of that, for sure,” Cutsinger adding, indicating that he was referring to the workshop proposal .
A letter that the Siesta Key Condominium Council sent to the commissioners in advance of the hearing, opposing the amendments, alluded to the coming reconstitution of the board: “There are too many unintended consequences and liabilities for it to be prudent governance to approve such far-reaching Comprehensive Plan changes by a soon to be reconstituted Commission without proper study or justification,” the letter said.
Cutsinger faced no opposition during his campaign to retain his District 5 seat, but a new commissioner, Teresa Mast, won the District 1 seat during the Aug. 20 Primary Election, and the General Election will decide the victor of the District 3 race — either former three-term Sheriff Tom Knight or Sharon Kay Thornton, both of Venice.
A happy conclusion
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 hearing, one of the speakers — Lourdes Ramirez of Protect Siesta Key and Siesta Key Community — issued a newsletter to the supporters of those nonprofits.
After noting the hearing’s outcome, she wrote, with emphasis, “It is possible that a future commission will revisit this topic, but for now, we can celebrate this as another victory for Siesta Key! Thank you for supporting our efforts to preserve Siesta Key!”
Robert Luckner, who spoke during the hearing on behalf of the Siesta Key Association, which he serves as acting treasurer, told The Sarasota News Leadervia email that the leaders of that organization also were pleased with the commission’s action.
‘A lot of uncertainties’
The Sept 11 agenda item formally was “a transmittal public hearing.” Before any county or municipality can adopt a new comprehensive plan policy, a supermajority of the board members in the jurisdiction has to approve the proposed language. A supermajority of the County Commission is four out of the five board members. Then the amendment has to be submitted to the Florida Department of Commerce for staff analysis.
Provided that state personnel find no inconsistencies of note between the proposed amendment and existing policies in the jurisdiction, the local government board proceeds to conduct another hearing, after which it votes on adopting the amendment to the comprehensive plan. Again, a supermajority vote is required for approval.
Following Smith’s remarks to his colleagues about the recommended change to the height provision, in the aftermath of Planner Farrell’s presentation, Commissioner Cutsinger was the first to express wariness about proceeding with a vote that day.
“I’ve got heartburn with the whole thing, frankly,” Cutsinger said. “There’s a lot of uncertainties … and unknowns and unintended consequences.”
“This is pro-active,” Smith responded, reminding Cutsinger that the Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan already allows the rebuilding of complexes destroyed by storms, with the same numbers of residential units.
Smith then pointed out, “If a condominium wishes to take the enormous financial investment to rebuild, they could keep their density,” based on the proposed amendments.
He also noted that, when Sarasota County leaders had an opportunity to talk with the director of Florida’s Division of Emergency Management in Fort Myers, amid the destruction wrought by Hurricane Ian in late September 2022, they learned that Lee County Government staff had been averaging the receipt of 3,200 construction permit applications a month. After Ian, Smith said, that number jumped to 35,000 a month.
“This is pro-active,” he stressed more than once, referring to the voluntary nature of the demolition addressed with the proposed amendments.
Anyone visiting Fort Myers or Sanibel Island after Ian’s strike, Smith added, would have seen that the only buildings still standing were those constructed after the Florida Building Code was implemented on Jan. 1, 2000.
A number of considerations
During the hearing, in explaining her opposition to the amendments, Ramirez of Protect Siesta Key pointed out, “It’s been known for decades that Siesta Key has the most intensive residential development in all of Sarasota County. Nowhere else in the unincorporated [areas of the] county,” she added, “are there so many tall buildings like we have on Siesta Key.”
Moreover, Ramirez said, the island has the highest number of buildings with greater residential density than the levels allowed in the current zoning code.
She was the first person to suggest a continuance of the hearing, to make certain that what she characterized as loopholes in the proposed amendments had been “cleaned up.”
Two representatives of Sea Club V — including Tony Rateni, who has been the resort manager since 1978 — also offered comments.
Rateni talked of how familiar he is with weather threats and the dangers posed by storm surge, adding, “It’s only getting more intense, with these latest storms. It doesn’t have to be a hurricane to kind of wipe us out.”
He noted that two of Sea Club V’s buildings are 70 years old, while the third is 55 years old.
James Darling, who was representing the owners and the board of Sea Club V, alluded to remarks other speakers had made about condominium complexes upgrading their structures in accord with the state law passed after the Surfside disaster.
Yet, Darling explained to the commissioners, even with such improvements to the Sea Club V buildings, “Storm surge would still take out the first floor” of each one.
A few years ago, Rateni added, the owners voted to continue Sea Club V’s time-share plan for another 40 years, “meaning that they’re in this for the long haul.” He stressed that those owners are not renters.”
The resort has 2,091 unit-week owners, Rateni said. “All we’re trying to do,” he continued, “is maintain the safety and integrity of our unit owners.”
Darling further explained, “The board and the owners did not request to build [a new structure]. We’re only requesting to have the ability to build. … We would have to have a vote.”
Two-thirds of the owners of the units would to agree to pursue voluntary demolition and reconstruction before any demolition took place, Darling pointed out, if the amendments were approved.
“It makes no sense to rebuild after a storm,” with the provision that the complex could retain its 41 units, Darling emphasized, “but not to be allowed to rebuild before the storm.”
He has discussed that fact with several owners, he added. “It just makes no sense.”
The last speaker during the hearing, Luckner of the Siesta Key Association, said he appreciated the stance of the Sea Club V leadership, in regard to rebuilding units in accord with the current layout — new one-bedroom condos would replace previous one-bedroom condos, for example.
However, Luckner added, “I have no idea what’s in the [homeowners association] rules for the other 136 condos [on Siesta].”